A comparison of methods for adaptive treatment selection.
Traditionally drug development is generally divided into three phases which have different aims and objectives. Recently so-called adaptive seamless designs that allow combination of the objectives of different development phases into a single trial have gained much interest. Adaptive trials combining treatment selection typical for Phase II and confirmation of efficacy as in Phase III are referred to as adaptive seamless Phase II/III designs and are considered in this paper. We compared four methods for adaptive treatment selection, namely the classical Dunnett test, an adaptive version of the Dunnett test based on the conditional error approach, the combination test approach, and an approach within the classical group-sequential framework. The latter two approaches have only recently been published. In a simulation study we found that no one method dominates the others in terms of power apart from the adaptive Dunnett test that dominates the classical Dunnett by construction. Furthermore, scenarios under which one approach outperforms others are described.
Friede
Tim
T
Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV47AL, United Kingdom. t.friede@warwick.ac.uk
Stallard
Nigel
N
D001699:Biometry / Q000379:methods*; D017322:Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D055808:Drug Discovery / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical